The biggest bill of goods ever sold to supposedly intelligent
people is that there is no God and that present life originated from one simple cell and
evolved through a process of natural selection to its present form. I submit that this
hypothesis is not only unfounded, unscientific, and untenable, but that it is also, based
on all known and established laws, impossible. Moreover, I suggest that when man denies
God, man becomes a fool (Rom. 1: 21, 22). There are many irrefutable proofs that
spontaneous generation is responsible for life. Creation implies a Creator and design a
designer. If I were to show you my wrist watch and tell you that it simply evolved from
the basic shapeless metals and materials into its present state, you would view me as the
fool that I most surely would be. "Such is impossible," would be the outcry.
"If such could happen, from where were the basic metals and materials derived?"
Still, a further question could be asked, "what intelligence provided the impetus for
the formation of the watch?" Yet, my wrist watch example is very crude and simple
compared to the more advanced complexities involved in the universe. The Bible believer
who necessarily accepts the six-day creation account of Genesis one and two is often
styled as uneducated. Notwithstanding, Doctor Russell Humphreys (practicing physicist)
wrote, "there are around 10, 000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone
who openly believe in a six-day recent creation" (Creation Ex Nihilo, pg. 37,
referenced by Doctor Steven Taylor, In Six Days, pg. 304, see addendum).

How can I say that Darwinian evolution or naturalism is
impossible? I believe one of the most successful proofs that renders evolution not only
untenable but utterly impossible is the factual study of how creation interacts. Not only
interacts but how each particular component is a dependant component of the whole. These
components are often absolutely necessary for even the primary and rudimentary existence
of each other. Allow me to introduce this line of thought by quoting Doctor Jerry Bergman
who is a biology scientist who is instructor of science at Northwest State College,
Archbold, Ohio (Doctor Bergman has been a consultant for more than 20 science text books):

"Naturalism must account
for both the parts necessary for life and their proper assembly. For life to persist,
living creatures must have a means of taking in and biochemically processing food. Life
also requires oxygen, which must be distributed to all tissues, or for single-celled life,
oxygen must effectively and safely be moved around inside the cell membrane to where it is
needed, without damaging the cell. Without complex mechanisms to achieve these tasks, life
cannot exist. The parts could not evolve separately and could not even exist
independently for very long, because they would break down in the environment without
protection. Even if they existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle
waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate
very quickly from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or
other pathogens. For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary
parts as a functioning unit can produce life Creating the universe in parts
would not be unlike creating a liver and waiting a few days before creating a brain, then
several more weeks before creating a femur bone - until the body was eventually complete.
No other method appears to exist to produce life other than creating instantaneously a
fully functioning complete organism. This does not preclude that changes may have occurred
since that time, only that a certain level of complexity must have existed for both an
organism and a universe to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 27, 31, all emphasis
throughout mine, dm).

What I shall address in the remainder of this study are a few
areas to illustrate how there must be initially a totality of the interactive and
co-dependent parts in order to have the functioning whole. I shall begin with the simpler
and advance to the more complex.

The human skeleton.
Doctor Bergman wrote: "To illustrate this concept as applied in biology, an ordered
structure of just 206 parts will be examined. This is not a large number - the adult human
skeleton, for example, contains on the average 206 separate bones, all assembled together
in a perfectly integrated functioning whole" (In Six Days, pg. 34, 35). Before
I proceed, please allow me to ask you the question, have you ever wondered about the
perfectly shaped, located, and supporting relationship positioning of the bones making up
the human skeleton? In view of this basic anatomical fact, how could these 206 bones have
evolved separately and sequentially? This may sound very simple, but it becomes mind
boggling. Allow me again to quote biologist scientist Doctor Bergman:

"To determine the possible
number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which
can be lined up in only one way (1 x 1); or a system or two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or
1, 2, and 2, 1; a system of three parts, which can be aligned in six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or
1, 2, 3; 2, 3, 1; 2, 1, 3; 1, 3, 2; 3, 1, 2; 3, 2, 1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2
x 3 x 4) and so on. Thus, a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3 206
different ways, equal to 1 x 2 x 3 x 206. This number is called '206 factorial' and
is written '206!.' The value 206! is an enormously large number , which is a '1'
followed by 388 zeros ." (Ibid., pg. 34, 35). Achievement of only the
correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their
upside-down or right-side up placement, their alignment, the origin of the tendons,
ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of
10 to the 388th power random assortments .If one new trial could be
completed each second for every single second available in all of the estimated
evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most
conservative estimate gives us 10 to the 18th power seconds." In view of
this, I might ask, what does this mean in simple terms? Hear Doctor Bergman:
" The chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is
less than once in 10 billion years ." (Ibid., pg. 36).

Notwithstanding the simple matter of the human skeleton, not
even mentioning all the different anatomical differences and structural interaction of all
living forms, the evolutionist considers all uneducated who do not accept their
unintelligent explanation for life! A God who could create the human skeleton that would
be immediately aligned and functioning would have no difficulty in restoring
"strength" to the feet and ankle bones of the lame man (Acts 3: 1-11).

The means of sight, the eye.
We are told regarding Eve, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food" (Gen. 3: 6). God told Abram, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the
place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the
land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen. 13:
14, 15). Doctor Ariel Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in
Loma Linda, California. Doctor Roth is a biology scientist. Concerning the 670 muscles in
the human, Doctor Roth wrote: "The presence of complexity - interdependent parts that
do not function unless other parts are also present - poses another major problem for
evolution. For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct
its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without the
complicated control mechanism in the brain to direct the contracting activity of the
muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles. Without these three
essential components, we have only useless parts. In a process of gradual evolutionary
changes, how does complexity evolve?" (In Six Day, pg. 87). Doctor Roth next
mentions the eye:

"Without the foresight of a
plan, we would expect that the random evolutionary changes would attempt all kinds of
useless combinations of parts while trying to provide for a successful evolutionary
advancement. Yet as we look at living organisms over the world, we do not seem to see any
of these random combinations The simple example of a muscle pales into
insignificance when we consider more complicated organs such as the eye or the brain.
These contain many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without
the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all
the necessary components are present and working. The eye has an automatic focusing system
that adjusts the lens so as to permit us to clearly see close and distant objects. We do
not fully understand how it works, but a part of the brain analyzes data from the eye and
controls the muscles in the eye that change the shape of the lens .Then there are the
100, 000, 000 light-sensitive cells in the human eye that send information to the brain
through some 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers of the optic nerve. In the brain this information is
sorted into various components such as color, movement, form, and depth. It is then
analyzed and combined into an intelligible picture. This involves an extremely complex
array of interdependent parts. But the visual process is only part of our complex brains,
which contain some 100, 000, 000, 000 nerve cells connected by some 400, 000 kilometers of
nerve fibers. It is estimated that there are around 100, 000, 000, 000, 000 connections
between nerve cells in the human brain. That we can think straight is a witness to a
marvelous ordered complex of interdependent parts that challenges suggestions or an origin
by random evolutionary changes. How could such complicated organs develop by an unplanned
process?" (Ibid. pg. 88, 89).

Can you just imagine the lens saying to the brain or in the
reverse, Now evolve me 100, 000, 000 light sensitive cells and an optic nerve with 1, 000,
000 nerve fibers and put in place capability and storage for color, movement, form, and
depth, oh, yes, I will need the necessary delicate muscles to activate these components?
Remember that all of these necessary components would have to come into existence within a
very short time of each other or they would deteriorate. However, according to organic
evolution, such an intricate and complex evolution through natural selection would take
multiplied years (some say trillions) to happen.

The science of cells.
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,"
wrote the inspired writer of Hebrews, "so that things which are seen were not made of
things which do appear" (Heb. 11: 3). The more we study a matter, the more we
discover. I am not sure Hebrews 11: 3 is referring to such matters as cellular
consideration, but it is possible. The more science has discovered about cells, the more
ridiculous the notion of evolved life becomes. Doctor John Marcus (a biochemistry
scientist) wrote regarding cellular matters and Darwinian philosophy thus, "We have
already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality
must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us" (Ibid. pg. 180,
181).

Doctor Hickman wrote: "Cells are the fabric of life. Even
the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of
all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells. In a human an estimated
60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized
community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the
confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman,
1997, pg. 43). How could these 60 trillion cells in the human that are interacting and
often co-dependent, I ask, have simply evolved?

Doctor Jerry Bergman in referencing the work of Overman
considers the cell in the following fashion;

"Evolutionists once argued
that all life could develop from some hypothetical first cell, because even today all new
life develops from a single cell, but we now realize that a cell can develop into a
complex organism only because all of the parts and instructions are in the original cell
produced from conception. The human mother passes not only 23 chromosomes but also an
entire cell to her offspring, which includes all the organelles needed for life. A cell
can come only from a functioning cell and cannot be built up piecemeal, because all the
major organelles must have been created and assembled instantaneously for the cell to
exist" (In Six Days, pg. 29 and Overman, 1997).

When the cell is microscopically considered, another area of
research emerges, the matter of DNA. Doctor John Marcus wrote:

"DNA evidence is often
claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God's
handiwork of design in a powerful way. Let us consider the complexity of this important
component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could
come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living
organisms. The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one
considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the
information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself
into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex
organism. If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it
would literally be almost one meter long and yet so thin it would be invisible to all but
the most powerful microscopes. Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a
space that is much smaller than the head of a pin and that this tiny string of human DNA
contains enough information to fill almost 1, 000 books, each containing 1, 000 pages of,
text" (Ibid. pg. 174, remember that there are about 60 trillion interacting
cells in the human).

Amazing as the DNA molecule may be," Doctor
Bergman continues, "there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is
possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex
machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA
if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of
instructions to put together the machinery. Without the cellular machinery, we would have
no DNA since it is responsible for synthesizing DNA; without DNA we
would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are
co-dependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning or it will be
meaningless bits and pieces" (Ibid., pg. 174, 175).

Relative to the cellular and DNA, all of this is
comparatively simple when one considers how all of this graduates. Involved in the cell
and DNA, there must be a number of proteins present. The DNA template then
(when everything is perfect and equally functioning) produces RNA. For RNA
to be synthesized, at least five different protein chains must be present and cooperate.
Furthermore, this enzyme complex must be able to recognize where to start reading and
transcribing DNA into RNA. All of this is still simple when we advance to
the three types of requisite RNA and the process produced by a large number of
proteins called the ribosome. The paramount point that I wish to make is stated better by
Doctor Bergman:

"Needless to say, without
proteins life would not exist; it is as simple as that. The same is true of DNA and RNA.
It should be clear that DNA, RNA, and proteins must all be present if any of them are
going to be present in a living organism. Life must have been created completely
functional, or it would be a meaningless mess. To suggest otherwise is plain ignorance (or
perhaps desperation). So, we truly have a 'which came first?' problem on our hands. I
believe the answer is, of course, that none of them came first! God came first; He
designed and then created all of life with His spoken Word. DNA, RNA, and protein came all
at exactly the same time. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe
that this astoundingly complicated DNA-blueprint translation system happened to come about
by chance" (Ibid., pg. 177).

Beloved, organic evolution that is being increasingly accepted
today as science is not science. It is a fanciful hypothesis that is not founded on
scientific laws and it is incapable of being reproduced, duplicated, or replicated to
study in a laboratory. It is high time that this Godless philosophy be stripped of its
claims of super intelligence and be presented as the unintelligent belief system that it
is. Darwinian evolution is not even a theory because a theory has some facts upon which it
rests. As we have seen, naturalism is not only unbelievable, it is impossible. We have
shown this, I believe, based on the interacting and co-dependent nature of some of the
most basic and necessary components of rudimentary life. We have also shown from actual
science that these co-supporting components cannot be viewed as sequential in their
developmental and evolutionary processes, as evolutionists claim, because they cannot
separately exist for even a short period of time in their rudimentary forms. Hence, life
had to have opened at once, just as we are told in Genesis one and two.

In view of the complexity and the interacting nature of the
most essential and basic of the components of life, we should now more greatly appreciate
the biblical statement: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God, they are
corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Ps. 14: 1).

Addendum: The work In
Six Days was compiled by Doctor John F. Ashton. It is a book based on asking fifty
different established scientists why they choose to believe in creation as opposed to
naturalism. Hence, the fifty chapters making up the book contain simple and
straightforward reasons as to why these scientists believe in the Genesis account of
creation and reject Darwinian evolution.